Laserfiche WebLink
a static factor of safety of 1.5 is considered acceptable for global slope stability under <br /> static conditions. <br /> 2.1.2 Seismic Design Criteria <br /> Title 27 CCR requires that Class III landfills be designed to resist a peak ground <br /> acceleration corresponding to the MPE that the site is anticipated to experience. The <br /> MPE is defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology (1975) as "the <br /> ' earthquake that is likely to occur in 100 years, but it is not to be smaller than the largest <br /> historical earthquake." Title 27 CCR Section 21750(f)(5)(D) requires that a dynamic <br /> factor of safety of 1.5 or greater must be achieved for the critical slope, unless a more <br /> rigorous method of analysis is used that provides a quantified estimate of the magnitude <br /> of slope movement. If a rigorous method is used, it should also be demonstrated that the <br /> predicted slope movement could be accommodated without jeopardizing the integrity of <br /> ' the landfill. A permanent displacement of 12 inches along the cover liner is considered <br /> as allowable, based on the RCRA Subtitle D (258) Seismic Design Guidance for <br /> Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facilities(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], <br /> 1995). Seismic data for the site developed by Shaw has been used for this analysis. <br /> 2.2 Method of Static Slope Stability Analysis <br /> The soil cover for the landfill cap extension was analyzed based on equations for the <br /> factor of safety discussed by Giroud et al. (1995). In the analysis presented by the authors <br /> they discuss a soil veneer as a two part system consisting of an active wedge residing <br /> upslope from a passive wedge at the toe of the slope. The active wedge partly relies on <br /> the strength of the interface between the geosynthetic and the overlying soil. The passive <br /> wedge relies on strength developed within the soil at the toe of the slope. The equations <br /> developed by Giroud et al. take into account all parameters necessary to perform a limit <br /> equilibrium analysis of a soil veneer over a geomembrane. <br /> ' It is our opinion that the method of stability analysis is sufficiently conservative because <br /> the height of the slope being analyzed compared to the thickness of the landfill final <br /> cover is much less than a factor of 30 (-8 ft/2 ft = 4). According to Thiel (2008) the toe <br /> buttressing effect of a double wedge analysis only becomes ineffective when the ratio of <br /> slope height compared to cover thickness approaches 30, which is significantly higher <br /> than the ratio for this project. <br /> 2.3 Method of Seismic Slope Stability Analysis <br /> As noted previously, the seismic slope stability analysis presented herein was performed <br /> to satisfy Paragraph(f)(5)(D) of Section 21750 of Title 27 CCR. The analyses performed <br /> include: <br /> • A site-specific seismicity evaluation that estimated the MPE for faults that may impact <br /> this site and the corresponding magnitudes of peak ground acceleration(PGA) <br /> • Static slope stability analyses using the double wedge equations to calculate the static <br /> factors of safety <br /> Slope Stability Analysis Corral Hollow Landfill—Rev 2 5/20/2012 <br /> 3 <br />